The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-10-06

some surprise that the Womans Christian
Temperance Union of Maine should end orse
the Third Party movement as the best meth
cd Of promoting the cause of temperance,
and indicated briefly some Of the harmful
consequences to the work of the Union that
would be likely to flow from such action.
In another column Mrs. Stevens, In behalf Of
the majority OF the Union, gives some of the
reasons for this action. The basis Of it APP
pears to have been the opinion Of Mrs. j.
Ellen Foster, the legal adviser Of the Ma
tional Union, who said in 1882 every tenn
perance woman ought to oppose by voice and
influence the action Of any party in which
1t ignores or refuses TO submit, the question
OF Prohibitory or Constitutional amendment
TO the vote Of the people. She ought, Also
to support the action Of any party wherein
1t commands representatives to thus aid the
people in the expression Of their will" Two
years later the Repu blican and Democratic
national conventions refused to adopt a reso-
luton in favor Of submitting Prohibitory
amendment to the people, while the Prohibi-
tory national convention took the opposite
course.
The Union appear to have interpreted Mrs.
Fosters language as an injunction TO oppose
the party that refused to submit a constitu-
tional amendment and support the party
that consented to do SO. Perhaps the con-
text may show that this Interpretation was
the correct one, but so much of her language
as Mrs. Stevens quotes only commits her to
advising the Union to oppose a particular
action of a party, not the party itself As
Stunning that the Union interpreted it cor
rectly, then their action in endorsing the
Third Party was perfectly logical What
we question Is the soundness of
Mrs. Fosters opinion. The first part
Of 1t we take no exception to, but the
latter part-the part that enjoins it as a
duty to endorse any party that would favor
the submission Of the prohibltory amend
ment-was not good advice. Four years la
ter Mrs. Foster herself had apparently come
to the conclusion that 1t was not sound, for
we find her saying in 1885, in response to the
question, How does the Third party move
ment stand in Iowa.?
ut has so little strength that 1t has scarce
ly been taken into account at all. Pr0hibi-
ton in Iowa has been m0vment of the peo-
pie, by the people and for the people, and
now good men in all parties are supporting
1t. The Democrats, at the last State conven-
ton, resolved in faver of local prohibition, a
thing which never occurred before. A
Democratic platform without personal lib
erty and anti-sumptuary law-plank, is a
unique incident in the political history of
Iowa"
And again In response to the question,
what is the general effect Of the Third
Party movement throughout the country
MY sentiments on that point are well
known, and are only intensified by time. L
believe that the Third Party movement is
orms g psfp aeoa Of 4a s Of re
been disastrous, and only disastrous 1t is
beyond my comprehension that any temper
ance man should say, as an advocate of the
third Party mos ement Is quoted as saying
that 1T makes no difference whether any
party dominates total abstinence clergy
man or a beer-drinker." 1t appears to me
such utterances indicate more Of a desire for
party-building than for temperance promo
ton. have no sympathy with the desire
TO kill any party, but am in hearty sympa-
thy with the desire to destroy the liquor
traffic"
And again referring to the Third Party
movement In Maine, she said:
'It is seeking to defeat Ex-Governor Ding
ley for Congress, who for quarter of a CEN
fury has been one of the staunchest cham
pl0ns OF prohibition. In Congress he has
championed the bills for commission of
inquiry into the liquor trafic, for the enact
ment OF constitutional prohibition, and for
the scientific instruction of the evils OF alco-
hol, which as recently passed in Congress
makes it requisite in the educational system
Of the District Of Columbia and of all the
Territories and the government institutions
Indeed, he has favored every measure in
support OF prohibition. To my mind there
Is something little short Of insanity in this
demanded party change. l denominate it
p0Ttgph0bid."
-Four years OF experience had apparently
produced radical change in Mrs Fosters
views. What at first glance appeared to be
the best way of promoting the temperance
cause (for it is to be presumed that she would
not have commended 1t to the Union had she
not believed it to be the best way four years
later after she had abundant opportunity
to see its workings appeared to be the worst
or at least very bad way. And of course 1t
follows that Mrs Foster would not now adj
wise the Union to endorse it.
Mrs. Fosters original mistake was in advis-
ing the Union to endorse any political party.
The work Of the Union must necessarily be
largely moral and educational Its members.
under our present constitution, have no d-
rect voice In the making of the law; their
power is indirect and the result Of their infIu-
ence upon the voters. Anything that tends
to weaken this influence OF course tends to
weaken their power. The great majority OF
the voters belong to the two great parties
and therefore there is little chance of getting
temperance legislation except through one or
both Of them. The Third Party admits that
before it can do anything 1t must smash" at
least one of the other parties Now which is
the wiser course for the Union? To weaken
their influence with the great parties, as
they inevitably must by an alliance with
third one whose leaders go about the country
denouncing those parties as hypocrites and
''rummies", or to avoid official connection
with any and all?
III neither OF the great parties had shown
any willingness to attack the liquor traffic
the case would be different. hut that is no
toriously not the fact The ground of COM
plant Of the Woman's Union Ia that neither
of them has said so much or done so much
to suppress the traffic as the Union has asked
them to do. Yet great deal has been done,
and the disposition ex lists on the part of one
of them at least to do great deal more as
soon as public sentiment is strong enough to
sustain 1t. What the Union is doing, there
fore, is needlessly antagonizing an organiza-
ton that has done much for temperance be-